Passing Thoughts 5

If the power to nullify an unconstitutional law is prohibited to the states, it can be prohibited in one, and only one, place — The Constitution. This fact leads to a simple question which can settle the debate. “Where is the text in the Constitution that prohibits nullification?” If that text can’t be found, then nullification cannot possibly be prohibited. (Hint, there”s no such prohibition in Article I, Section X).

-*-

The “living Constitution” necessarily encroaches on both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. You can’t give the federal government new powers without carving them out of the reserved rights and powers. Hence, the idea of a “living Constitution” is prohibited by the Constitution itself. There is no theory of law that can change this fact.

-*-

Nullification not allowed? Another word for unconstitutional is illegal. Is it even plausible to argue that the states are required to cooperate with illegal federal directives? That argument didn’t work in Nuremberg.

-*-

The Population Bomb would require a whole society of adults to simultaneously choose to have children which they can’t support. Rational adults without the means to support a child don’t choose to have one. Barring natural disasters, in a world populated by rational people who choose freely, overpopulation on a massive scale is impossible.

-*-

Boyle’s Law tells us that the volume of a gas in a container will expand to fill the container. Likewise, enforcement of the Tenth Amendment is the container that defines how big the federal government will grow.

-*-

If this man couldn’t roll back the size of the federal government, then it can’t be done from the inside. Washington is not going to fix itself without some adult supervision from the States.

1.) Increase taxes and regulation on product X, driving up the cost and creating a crisis.

2.) Require everyone to purchase product X in order to “solve the crisis”.

3.) Set new value for X

4.) Go to 1.

-*-

fightthesmears.com, flag@whitehouse.gov, teapartytracker.org, attackwatch.com…. Are we starting to see a pattern?

-*-

When debating in blog comments, the goal is not to convince my opponent. I am no more likely to convince a competing advocate of my viewpoint then to be convinced of theirs. The goal in a blog comment debate is to persuade the silent, undecided, reader to agree with me. To accomplish this, it is vital to maintain a respectful tone.

-*-

Dear “anti-war” (D)s. If you’re silent now about the assassination of an American citizen by a (D) president, don’t expect me to listen to a single word you have to say on the subject next time the president has an (R) after his name.